Added: 2 years ago
From: OUbiologist
Views: 14,085
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (350)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Yeah, he wasn't a biologist. It was just some religious zealot who flipped. I've never met a college graduate (being one myself) who has ever referred to a Bachelors Degree as a "Bachelor Degree". He lied for credility as most wackos will. If he thinks Dawkins is a fraud, then he's likely the least qualified "biologist" in history. The science that Dawkins promotes is almost universally supported among real biologists.

  • If I had to guess, I'd say he's either lying about his degree to gain clout, or he received his "bachelor's" from Liberty University or some other non-accredited christian diploma mill.

  • i dont think a "bachelors" in biology qualifies a person as being a biologist.

  • He is most likely NOT a biologist. Creatards pretend to be scientists all the time to get clout.

  • @GnosticHumanist Evolutionists play like they are scientists to give their fairy tale ideas the slightest hint of reason, and to make their very religious ideas look a little less religious and ridiculous than they are. It is not rocket science to conclude that watches, DNA, seeds etc. do not happen by random chance, they are very carefully designed.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18

    You are right, they don't happen by random chance.....alone. The random chance assertion is simply a creationist word game and I challenge you to show otherwise. Also, what you should really consider is that DNA is simply a natural organic chemical system, a seed is an extension of that system and a watch is inorganic and has no relevance to the previous two!

  • @busybusy123456 If U believe in evolution, do U believe it was caused by an intelligent being, or something intelligent? If not how else would U explain it happening, other than chance? Humans can build watches from raw materials. We cannot build seeds or DNA from raw materials, they are infinitely to complicated. We cannot possibly build a machine that can do what an apple seed can do, yet to deny God is ultimately to believe that an apple seed is an organic machine which came about by chance.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18

    When you get down to the nitty gritty it is all just chemical reactions. Given enough time (which we have had) a self replicating molecule can quite easily come into existence; after that it is plain sailing. Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate things. You do not need to 'believe' in one or the other; you simply need to examine the evidence.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18

    Why do you think this analogy with a seed and a watch is relevant in any way, shape or form? What you are saying, in essence, is that because we can make an arrow (an easy thing) the reason we cannot travel at light speed (a hard thing) is because only a god (always your God I guess) can do that. That we can't do something yet or we do not know how to do something yet is not, in any way, evidence of any god. That is called the God of the Gap position, a logical fallacy

  • @busybusy123456 If we can make a watch, not a very easy thing really. And we definitely will never create a machine that can do what an apple seed can do, a totally impossible thing, that to me is compelling evidence that there is a God, a Being infinitely beyond us in ability, Who designed & created it. Romans 1 declares that the invisible things about God, are very clearly seen, and can be easily understood, by simply looking at the things He has made.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 Well, a watch is not self replicating, a living plant is; that is the difference that you are ignoring and is why your analogy is flawed. Also you can never say never, although you suggest we build a ‘machine’ that can do what an apple seed can do and I am not sure whether you are setting up a straw man fallacy or are simply misunderstanding something fundamental about this conversation.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 You cannot say with any certainty that the human race cannot do what you said is impossible. Perhaps with our increasing knowledge in this field we can, one day, make from scratch, a seed. You are simply positing something as fact when it isn’t and then you proceed to make stuff up to fill in this gap. Even if you were right about our inability to do something what you suggest is still a non sequitur: if we could not do something that in no way supports your position.

  • @busybusy123456 Intelligence does not come from non intelligence. Sight does not emerge from a non seeing source. Ears that hear do not come from a non hearing origin. Love does not come from an emotionless source. We do not see emotions, wind, gravity etc. We see the results of those invisible forces. What we believe, does not alter what is real. If there was no Creator, the entire world could believe in one & it would not make a Creator. The reverse is also true. All evidence points to God.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 You have just made 3 assertions with zero evidence to back your position up. Plus: love is a chemical reaction as are all our emotions (we can fiddle about with them because we now know what chemicals to mess about with) and the wind and gravity are physical manifestations of know phenomena. You keep saying all evidence points to god (your particular God no doubt!) yet offer only misunderstandings about very basic aspects of natural science and logical fallacies.

  • @busybusy123456 Love is not a chemical reaction. You cannot give somebody a chemical to make them love somebody they do not love. There may be chemical reactions that take place in the brain when somebody loves somebody, but the love is not chemically induced. Wind and gravity are physical manifestations of something that is not physical.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 Sorry, you are now simply talking nonsense and a very basic Google type search will show you how accurate you are being. Love is a chemical reaction, simple as that; it is testable and has been tested... However it is of course deeper than that because to make these chemicals in our bodies requires us to experience numerous emotional responses (chemicals again) to other stimuli. Cont...

  • Wind is caused by the Sun! Amongst other factors of course but the Sun is the main driving force, is the Sun not physical? And I am sure you have heard of the physical property Mass that virtually everything has?

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 To sum this discussion up very bluntly, if you spent as much time learning about the natural sciences (i.e. WHY they suggest what they suggest) as you do arguing about the length of the unicorn's horn with Mormons you would not have said any of what you have said to me. Knowledge is power and that is why the Churches always tried to control it and why science is so vastly different from religion.

  • @busybusy123456 God has absolutely no fear at all of science. God declares in the Bible, that His people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge Hosea 4:6. You are totally right about false religious belief systems trying to turn peoples brains off. This is also true with the faith of evolution. Real science, real evidence proves things did not happen by random chance & time. Millions or Billions of years ago, is fairy tale material, this world is only thousands of years old.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 What science fits your criteria of real? If what you assert was accurate we would not being having this discussion now because I would accept your position based on evidence. What does your belief system say about pride? Think on that then think about just how high an understanding you have of those things you are discussing tonight? If you have simply read something on a certain website then consider what witness you are giving to your God.

  • @busybusy123456 Real science is what can B seen, tested & demonstrated 2B facts. Belief will always trump truth. People who want 2 believe Mormonism can look at page 41 of their Pearl of Great Price, C the 2 Women, identified as men by Joseph Smith (figures 2 & 4 on that page) See egyptian books that identify them as the egyptian godesses Isis & Maat & still believe in Mormonism. The Bible teaches pride goes before a fall. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 speaks of those who want 2 believe lies.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 On a side note, do you even know what science is? The reason I ask is due to what you wrote in response to GnosticHumanist. To be fair the only one looking ridiculous is you. You have failed to take into account the wealth of evidence that support the biological sciences (you know, the evolutionary one..) and you also seem to misunderstand the definition of religion. Look up the two (science and religion) and see where (or where not) their definitions tally. Regards

  • @busybusy123456 Science is a study of things that can B known. Micro evolution is a fact, dogs produce a variety of dogs. Every other type of evolution is religious belief & fantasy. Humans do not & cannot come from apes. Dead matter cannot turn into soup, that comes 2 life & produces the amazing variety of types of life that we C. The planets & stars did not come about by accident or random chance. The earth is exactly designed 2 support life, change things a little bit & life is impossible.

  • @1stcorinthians1vrs18 Oh dear, where to start! First science is based on observations, positing explanations for those observations and testing those explanations. Science can also study things that may never be known but we won't know that until we try to know those things. Second evolution IS a fact based on testable science because if it wasn't anyone trained sufficiently could show us it wasn't and we’d look for another explanation. Macro evolution is simply an extension of micro ...

  • cont... We know we share a common ancestor with modern apes (do you see you error in what you wrote now?). We know organic molecules natural occur everywhere (it happens in space too!) and once there it is a short step to self replication. We know that we ALL share a common ancestor. The planets and stars formed simply by following physical laws (nothing accidental or random there...) cont...

  • cont... We have evolved to suit this planet (do you see your error again!?) and if we changed things a bit we would adapt of die. However to say life would be impossible is wrong (again) and you only need to consider the vast differences in eco systems on this very planet to see that life can adapt to all sorts of conditions; often in conditions that would kill you outright!

  • Having a Bachelors in Biology is not the same as being a biologist,. One needs to do science beyond that such as a MSC (Masters of Science) or PhD to be qualified to use the title. He at best could be a lab tech. Is is however, clearly an idiot

  • Boy oh boy they really grow em plenty stupid and numerous in these united states. this particular loud mouthed rude fuck will hopefully pop off in the future to someone who'll stomp his guts out.

  • if he's a scientist then act like one and not one of the numerous bigots i have to F***ing put up with every single day. richard dawkins thinks with crystal clear logic and i think the world would be a better place if we were all more like him, and i mean with better thinking patterns so you may come up with your own conclusion, not dissing christianity.

  • @bullfrog11758 you ask where the evidence is? it there if you choose to look. It cant be given in a simple comment box. religion is brainwashing... fact! wheres the facts that its true? your a moron... FACT!

  • Let's face it, Dawkins isn't even a real biologist, his undergrad degree is in Zoology!

  • @Ohyewildthong Zoology is still a biological study. Also he has further education in genetics, again, biology.

  • @derthensbane No offence but zoology is for the kids who were too thick to do proper ungergraduate biology.

  • @Ohyewildthong

    Are you kidding me?!

    What are you talking about?

    Zoology IS biology. So are botany, microbiology, ethology, and YES-- genetics too.

    Macroeconomics IS economics.

    Cognitive pyschology IS psychology.

    Painting IS art.

  • @Ohyewildthong So what do you consider proper undergraduate biology?

  • @derthensbane Normal biology for a start. It's the simple case that some public school boys (this means boys who went to private school) take "soft" subjects at excellent british unis like Oxford and Cambridge because they simply aren't good enough for the real thing. Huge amount of public school boys in my country take degrees in theology, even though they have no interest in the subject because, like zoology, very few people apply for it so it's easy to get into.

  • @Ohyewildthong public school is people who went to public school not private, thought that would be self explanitory. Define normal biology. Biology is broken up into many areas as it is a very diverse feild. there is no 'normal biology'. If you study general biology at an undergrad level it is less specialized than zoology. To say otherwise or to say zoology isnt the 'real thing' is simply ignorant of what zoology and biology is. normal biology... lol it pays to know what your talking aout

  • @derthensbane In the country that Richard Dawkins and I share public schooling is private schooling. I am not an american. I am well aware but it doesn't change the fact that zoology is a soft subject. That is why the entry requirements at ALL British universities for Zoology is never higher that undergrad biology; thats a simple fact.

  • @Ohyewildthong im not aware of British university requirements. your still not answering my initial question. you say zoologists aren't biologists. that is just not true. and prehaps the reason zoology requirements arent higher than undergrad bio is that zoology is in fact undergrad bio. i dont think you see the distinction, "normal biology for a start'' suggests you have a tenuous grasp on what the feild of biology is. Also saying its a soft subject is simply your misinformed opinion, not fact.

  • @Ohyewildthong - I hesitate to call Zoology soft but it does escape (at some universities) the requirements of molecular biology or chemistry that are often requirements of a broader biology degree. Anyway, at the undergrad level it may seem softer but as a professional degree it is as rigorous.

  • @derthensbane - Actually its a strange linguistic mangling in Britain - Public schooling means private (as in open to anyone from anywhere with no state funds (although some get some)) and state schooling is public (also known as state run etc).

  • @ricko1111 I have become aware of this since my post. My main point was saying that zoologists are still biologists.

  • Further evidence that there is a lore above R. Dawkins!

  • Empty teabags can make loud noises.

  • The guy obviously has temper issues.

  • i like the end bit

  • NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE

    Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.

    Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.

    See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com

    or

    figure4etc3.yolasite.com

    See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb­­ly.com announcements-balancedway.yola­­site.com

  • What a sissy

  • I've got a B.A. in Poli Sci and Econ, doesn't make me a Political Scientist or Economist... a B.S. doesn't make him a biologist... idiot

  • why re creationists so wild?:)

  • @esraretin

    Severe mental illness

  • @esraretin you can disagree with evolutionism and not be a creationist if you stop questioning a theory it becomes religion

  • LOL Bullfrog11758 closed the account. Creationists usually run and hide as soon as their arguments no longer have any credibility. The mobvemnet is growing fast and people are starting to come out of their shells and starting to see the real world as it is and not through the tales of the bible.

  • @bullfrog11758 Typical creationist as you are.  please....research the bible. its authors, the translations, the editors. Then consider the time at which it was written. The lack of knowledge as it was written. now just to humor me...if you can just assume the bible is false and listen to the stories and the unbelievable tales. maybe you will finally come to your senses. maybe not. The world is a great place. Mankind can be a wonderful experience. Dont waste it on fairlytales. Good luck

  • This video might be convincing to creationist dimwits.

    I have a T-shirt that says:

    god = square root of -1

    Funny how I get one of two reactions:

    1. "I like your shirt!"

    2. "What does that mean?”

  • Evolutionism is just an old pagan fairy tale disguised as science

  • @SonofJaphet Evolutionism may be (crazy morons (Mormons) made up this word), but the Theory of Evolution certainly not.

  • @euzebiogb you can trace evolutionism back in the old vedic fable writtings . Apostle Paul warned christians of these vain philosophies, man made fables .Science doesnt need evolutionism its just a parasite to Science.When you cannot question a scientific theory it stops to being scientific it becomes a religion

  • @SonofJaphet You don't even follow the words you defend, how come you can defy the evolution of species.

  • @euzebiogb Because im free to defy what i want especially something that is suspicious like this unscientific theory filled with speculations

  • @euzebiogb How can i defy evolurionism?I got a mind of my own and i dont trust evo scientists because the scientific community is filled with corrupted scientists

  • @bullfrog11758 ??????????????????????????????­?????????? No sense debating with you.......creationists want their belief to be correct....... the truth means nothing to them......here is a thought for you....if evolution was just a story why does it make sense? None of the bible makes any sense at all......

  • @bullfrog11758

    evolution is not based in "supposition and conjecture". it is, in fact, based on an enormous fossil record of evidence. i highly recommend "Prehistoric Life: evolution and the fossil record" by Bruce S. Lieberman (my biology professor) and Roger Kaesler. also "The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution" by the "buffoon" Richard Dawkins.

    it's real, read up.

  • @bullfrog11758 You are so foolish and prideful to deny Zeus' existence. May He have mercy upon you and not send you to his brother Hades' underworld. Atoms are against what science teaches. I mean, you can't even see it! It's bad science, yet taught as a fact. <<<< That's what you sounded like to us. See why we make fun of you?

  • @bullfrog11758

    Evolution is a fact. We have observed evolution. Do you know what evolution is? Evolution is change over time. Do you know the mechanics of that change? It's mutation and natural selection. The scientific method has verified the accuracy of evolution through consistent models, repetition, peer review - and all the things that make the scientific method more reliable than creationist nonsense. The bible isn't a science book. The earth isn't 6000 years old. I.D. is bullshit

  • Evidence of how religion can lead to chaos and intolerance.

  • Kill this man right now. He is a disgrace to the scientific community.

  • lets face it he is right in essence, Dawkins is a fraud.

  • @davemakesawave  It is amazing how evolution works. Natural selection is such a beautiful process but it is not perfect....somehow both managed to bypass you and bullfrog. It is just so clear neither of your brains evolved to a level of intelligence capable of your own thoughts. Neither of you are even capable of grasping the concept of evolution/

  • He sounds like Mr. Garrison.

  • Dawkins taught that "chance" makes it possible for evolution to have happened but he never did any research on this. he is a fraud. Lee Peltner, mathematician did the math on microbiology being able to prove macrobiology adn the number came to picking one electron out of 1,376 Universes (if there are that many) adn it being the right electron. Macro-evolution was debunked at least 50 eyars ago by other mathematicians. If Dawkins is going to talk about chance, shouldn't he do the math first? (con

  • @thesacredcowtipper After all, aren't scientists supposed to reproduce over and over something in the lab to prove their point. yet he did not do the math. He just assumed what he was saying was true because he beleives it is true.

  • @thesacredcowtipper your a fucking retard trying to manipulate dawkins. he never says chance, he says its the opposite. yes lets ignore evolutionary biologists for mathematicians. and you just made up lee peltner right.

  • @MrKGatl Read The Blind Watchmaker and tell me your god Dawkins doesn't talk about chance and know I did not make up Lee Peltner.

    Evolutionary biologists are that evotards becasue they think micro proves macro even though no one has ever seen macro happen. We assume it happened because we see cats having sex with cats and having other cats. That's not even intelligent. They only argue against intelligent design because they lack it.

  • @thesacredcowtipper you cant even be taken seriously, when you tell atheists that dawkins is my god. Is ted haggard your god? Yes what a bunch of idiot human who can live millions of years to witness macro evolution. This is a ploy from dumb religious people to refute facts and logic. You can live you life of fairy tales, but i live in the real world with proofs and evidence. The entire scientific community believes in evolution. Look up Evolution v. Creationism: Listen to the Scientist.

  • @MrKGatl Ted Haggard? Come on. I've heard scientist that are evolutionists who have said there are serious problems with their theory including people like Steven Jay Gould. I have also listened to Intelligent Design Scientists and Creationist scientists (both young and old -earth). All the real observable evidence falls in line with ID and creationism. To say the entiree scientific community believes in macro evolution is funny when most fields of science were starte dby creationists.

  • @thesacredcowtipper Gould and other scientists are still fine tuning the specifics yes, but he was an evolution professor and researcher. There are no serious problems, and there is no controversy within the scientific community that evolution took place. Intellegent Design scientist and Creation scientist are oxymorons. There is no real observable evidence for ID or creation. Thats a flat lie to state that most fields were started by creationists. More religious bullshit, and no evidence

  • @MrKGatl Gould has been dead for about 6 or 7 years. Why do you think Gould and Eldridge changed the theory to punctuated equilibrium? Because that is how everything came--just like the Bible teaches. There are no intermediate fossils. The ones they try to use as evidence are ridiculous.

  • @thesacredcowtipper you have the right to believe what you want to believe. However, dont manipulate science. Dont try and twist science to back up your conclusions. You think that science confirms that god made the earth, not even close. There are millions of intermediate fossils. They are everywhere in museums. Fish with feet instead of pectoral fins, early ancestors of homo erectus. Why would god design up with an imperfect body. Why give us an appendix only to have it kill some of us

  • @MrKGatl Are you saying a slamander is proof of macro evolution (fish with feet)?

    Almost every ancestor to homo erectus has been proven false or just an extinct ape or chimpanzee. So Gould and Eldridge don't knwo what they were talking about?

    The appendix saves more lives than it kills. It stores good bacteria needed to digest our food, and is also part of our immune system. If some are killed by it, that only proves genetic entropy not evolution. You are looking at the evidence backwards.

  • @thesacredcowtipper No, the salamander is an amphibian. How about the ambulocetus, also called the walking whale. The problem isnt that there arent transitional fossils, its that some people refuse to accept them. Early hominids were proto human. We are still learning, only a minicule amount of organisms become fossils. The scientiific community is completely behind evolution. Go watch the video Evolution Vs. Creation: Listen to the Scientists

  • I.D. dipshits want an ape to give birth to a human as proof of evolution. The only problem is, if that happened, evolution would be disproven - not proven. Creationists assholes want to see proof of the "croco-duck". Then these creationists fucktards say stupid shit like, "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Displaying their complete ignorance of evolutionary biology. These dumb-shits think an invisible being made everything in 7 days - just 6000 years ago- for fuck sakes.

  • @caposton Dont be so harsh......Evolution is the reason they are walking upright with opposed thumbs to pick up their bibles. They just do not understand that reading the fairy tales in the bible has impeded the evooution of their brains to a modern state of mind where one can be freed of the bonds of religion and think for themselves.

  • @thesacredcowtipper you have the right to believe what you want to believe. However, dont manipulate science. Dont try and twist science to back up your conclusions. You think that science confirms that god made the earth, not even close. There are millions of intermediate fossils. They are everywhere in museums. Fish with feet instead of pectoral fins, early ancestors of homo erectus. Why would god design us with an imperfect body. Why give us an appendix only to have it kill some of us

  • @MrKGatl There is evidence of evolution in these creationists bodies. Look at the thumbs. they can hold their bibles in one hand. We need to perform much more research to discover why evolution and natural selection bypassed their brains.. lol

  • @thesacredcowtipper You a child with your fingers in your ears and you eyes closed. Atleast go read an elementary grade biology book. How can you believe in creationism, why would god create someone as dumb as you. Or why would he make me an atheist?

  • @MrKGatl How come when you guys can't prove your point, you ahve deride people? Everything that has a beginning has a beginner. it's simple. You believe matter came into existence all by itself. If the Big Bang happened, there is a beginning and therefore a beginner. Do you ahve any logic? You created yourself an atheist because you ginore the obvious. Whent he last few prophecies int he Bible come to pass, you can keep rejecting it or finally wake up but hopefully not when it is too late.

  • @MrKGatl Don't tell me you bought into whale evolution? I ahve a video that makes fun of that evidence. Is it pakecetus that was just a few bones adn they did the whole Nebraska Man thing and made an entire family out of a pig's tooth adn called it evidence or is it ambulucetus that looks more like a croc? So you think hudreds of prophecies that have come to pass (around 3,000) is all coincidence?

  • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OU people are funny. Not all people here in the bible belt are retarded, but this guy takes the retard cake for sure (no offense meant to those who are close with somebody who has mental retardation. Just a figure of speech). Seriously, being an atheist in the bible belt sucks, but moments like these make me proud to be an atheist, just to know that I am not associated with morons like this.

  • My my my. How angry fellows like this get. How does the line from Shakespeare go? "The lady doth protest too much"? Except a man in this instance and in a different context, but there is some wisdom in Shakespeare that cuts across subjects. I've heard many of Dawkins speaches, and he doesn't go around personally insulting people--why should someone get so upset just because someone doesn't share their beliefs and speaks out about why they don't?

  • Bachelor in biology lol

  • A bachelors doesn't make you a credible scientist. That man was a moron.

  • Can you imagine somebody who preaches to a bunch of atheists getting attacked so animalistically? I can't.

  • @OUbiologist - You may not have taken the footage but, you did indeed label it . A creationist never fails to be dishonest. It's a truly disgusting way to live a life.

  • This is not a truthful video I've seen a more clear video of this and he says he is NOT a Theologian! You fuckers are in denial that he finds Dawkins a moron which I agree

  • You're a very weak person. 

  • @LordEli

    Lmao, you're the moron. The video specifically puts an X on theologian, as in, indicating he is not a theologian.

    But I'm sure you "have no more patient for" me too.

  • Because believers regardless good or bad, they don't opout with whiney bullshit like you pussies with why yuo became atheists. Thats hypocrit bullshit propaganda in itself. When you get out of this evolution atheist fairtale you will be back to the ground begging for God's mercy. I am convinced from the Example God set before me. that my brand of Justice on your nitwits is what the world needs right now tough love. You will learn to love him or face damnation regardless you like it or not

  • @LordEli :) I had been there before and I didn't like it. I was religious and I was afraid of questioning my own belief because my fear of many things. I drowned myself in ignorance and maybe insecurity. I wanted to "convert" everybody I see or know of to ensure myself that my faith is true, I became defensive and angry when people question my belief, but I came to question it myself, and only with wisdom and the courage to question it, I freed myself from fear and never feel more liberating.

  • @PeaceOfTruth I find your testimony fraudulent and deceitful. cause if you were a believer you'd NEVER Have doubt or question your own salvation. for your loyalty love and devotion was all you needed, since you turned your back as you claimed you have most certainly condemned yourself. its not to late son. You can still repent and return to the Lord before its to late

  • @LordEli Well you aren't obligated to believe anything I said, and it doesn't change the truth whether you believe it or not. I have no interest what so ever to return to religion, and I feel no need to. I do not feel like I condemned myself either. And if good generous people who wish to improve our society is condemned to hell, and if hell in fact exist at all, let it be that i will be in hell with them.

  • @PeaceOfTruth That's perfectly fine with me because I have no more patient for those whom accept ignorance over the truth

  • You sir, are a 'tard.

  • Whahahhaha what an idiot

  • After all of this, I got to talk to Dawkins and I told him I wish I could've heard whatever his response would have been. He looked up at me and said, rather matter-of-factly, "I couldn't even hear what he said."

  • Omgosh this is so embarrassing. this man claimed to be biologist? I am from Oklahoma and I have witness ignorant conservative people like this all the times even though facts and truths are shoved in their face they chose to ignore it, cover their ears and shout as loud as possible.

  • @PeaceOfTruth Thats what is mornic about you who's fact are they and what makes you think they are truth? Evolution. has NO Evidence. lacks all truth. lacks all evidence. It's morons like you that are going to be brought to your knee's when you are finallt faced with the truth

  • @LordEli Evolution are being examined right now at this moment, all theory in science are tested and examined over and over again. There are evidence of fossils that changes over times and DNA studies that lead to the finding of common DNA in different species. I think science had done alot more to our society than any religion had, and I would rather choose to believe what can be proven to me then listening to some non-scientific book written thousand of years ago, nonsense.

  • @PeaceOfTruth You've admitted ignorance then cause Science is unproven. However the Bible has proven over and over again. think then think again the truth will set you free, but Science will only bury you deeper in ignorance

  • @LordEli Do you read what i said at all or do you just cover your eyes and ear and spit out nonsense? The bible had been proven over and over again? Great irony. What set me free is not to be restricted by fear of being condemned to hell for eternity, what set me free from ignorant is not blindly believe in a fantasy/fairy tale novel written thousand years ago by people who has little understand of our world.

  • @PeaceOfTruth You know whats so ignorant about what you said? I lived a great deal of my life hating on God and Jesus and so forth, and I believed in them wasn't the least bit worried about going to hell! I DIDN'T FUCKING CARE! Now when the time came and they proved to me the cared for me regardless of my negative feelings. Shit changed in me. so using that cop out. Now you live free of the threat of hell! Is just bullshit. You atheists are the only fucking retards living in a fairytale

  • @LordEli - No one is swearing at you or threatening you. You have decided to come to a video of a scientist and swear at and threaten everyone. Why do you feel a need to threaten everyone. Did you discover Jesus in prison or something? You really come of as some sort of violent convict that has turned to God.

  • What does the guy say in the beginning?

  • @Maupert90

    Well, being on the floor not 20 feet away from the dude, and this was during the Q & A session, he kept heckling Dawkins rather quietly, until some dude and some lady got up and yelled at him to either ask a question or shut the fuck up. That's when he began with his whole "I don't need a microphone" spiel.

    Anyway, from what I heard from a few friends and faculty members (I went to school at USAO, but our SSA sponsor was friends with the OU SSA sponsor, that's how we got our

  • @Maupert90 volunteer spots...just thought I might brag about that lol), this penis wrinkle makes a habit of going to lectures such as this one and heckling the speaker.

  • I wonder how much they paid him.

  • Is that special officer Doofy? If I didn't know better, I would have thought that was an actor to spice things up, but it's real LMAO!

  • I love how all creationist "think" that they're biologist...

  • That's the great thing about science, you don't have to care about who is making the argument--you just have to care about the argument. This distraught person who may or may not be a biologist failed to make a compelling argument, and made it abundantly clear that he isn't mature enough to listen to a lecture he disagrees with.

  • Apparently the biology dept at OU is a fraud.

  • what was Dawkins reaction?

  • @111E982a LMAO

  • Oh, I thought this was Ottawa University. They have macro-evolution as a mandatory first year course. I'm sure it is still possible for people to get a degree without it sinking in, without thinking too much about the issues, and possibly even lying on exams at any University - But I'm still a little releived that it''s OU instead of UO

  • you dont become a "biologist" by getting a bachelors.

  • @X3QT0R well... technically you do... as a biologist just means someone that studies biology.

  • Bat Dad!

    

  • I loved the checklist ^-^

  • @MoralityRules i bet you took the short bus to school

  • He thinks playing Pokemon and knowing the evolution of Pikachu makes him a Biologist.

  • @Killjeser

    LOL

  • Your not gona slam my God infront of God. Wait til he's in the pisser. I'm a biologist and a king and the second gunman on the grassy knoll and I took the lindberge baby and I am Joseph Mengele. Ha fuckin ha

  • Hahaha, what a dumb fuck. Richard rules.

  • that guy is no biologist

  • ya kno all we kno is hes angry. so wat? does that change reality? and why so upset? as a scientist you follow the truth where it may lead.

  • If he got his degree in biology from OU and is a creationalist, then OU needs to try and improve their biology dept.

  • @BigJonBone How can anyone take what you just said seriously when you can't spell creationist

  • @Rorxz My bad man. I must have accidentally thrown in an extra "l".

    And the comment wasn’t necessarily meant to be taken seriously anyway.

  • @BigJonBone The O.U. employ's lecturers / professors from the UK leading universities.

  • I gotta say people are really harsh on the guy, but this video was really fuckin' hilarious at the end

  • CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX.

    Down, April 29th [1851].

    My dear Fox,I do not suppose you will have heard of our bitter and cruel loss. Poor dear little Annie, when going on very well at Malvern, was taken with a vomiting attack, ...........which carried her off in ten days. Thank God, she suffered hardly at all, and expired as tranquilly as a little angel. ........... Poor dear little soul. Well it is all over

    Project Gutenberg: Letters of Charles Darwin

  • he who shouts and walks away may show his airhead elswhere another day. There is no hope for those that don't evolve in time.

  • 4) If we're going off the assumption that the bible was written by the Adversary, and that its nothing but a book of lies designed to condemn mankind, then how do you not understand that such prophecies could be lies as well?

    My point about all of this is that you have no good reason to believe that the bible was written by God, and never even thought of the possibility that it was written by the Evil one.

    You have no good reason to assume that you're not following a retitled Necronomicon.

  • Sigh!! Another typical christian operating on emotion and not reason!!! When will they learn??

  • @99minerkc

    "When will they learn?? "

    The day their religion tells them it is OK to learn. In other words, never.

  • true

  • lol that aint no biologist.

  • After humanity falls and another race evolves from the ashes, their archaeologists will say "Wow, this Dawkins fellow tried pretty hard to save them. Too bad they didn't believe in our God Blooba the Pink Salamader."

  • And the nutters continue to come outta the wood work.

  • @ LordMalice6d9, well put sir

  • check list: is a total arsehole ..........yes!

  • So you admit it now Archaeopterix was a bird. A breakthrough! I cannot be a dino for the following reasons. A birds femur is largely fixed but in virtually all other animals it is not. It has the avian lung which air flows through. Again reptile and mammals have a diaphram type of breathing system. Totally different. This goes for the other examples you quoted too. Calling me a liar when you put these examples up is a bit rich isnt it. The difference? I can call you a liar rightfully.

  • numb1010: Overwhelming evidence? Well dont look for it in the fossil record. Dont look for it in molecular biology either. Mutations / natural selection all reduce the gene pool whether benficial or not. The more science uncovers about life and its complexity the less likely evolution is. One chance in 10^120 is given for an average protein to form. 10^80 estimated No of atoms in the universe. If evolution was a ship I'd rename it the Titanic.

  • Evolution is documented in existing species (Italian wall lizards in Pod Mrcaru, the mosquito during the Blitz, to the peppered moth during the Industrial Revolution, to numerous bacterial strains e.g. Sphingomonas). Then there are transitional fossils like Proterogyrinus, as well as a wealth of genetic corroboration such as human Ch2 corresponding (even down to the splice) to Chs12 & 13 in chimps.

    No peer-reviewed paper contradicts Evolution & there is no scientific debate re. its veracity.

  • The picture of the peppered moths on the tree trunk was a fraud. They were glued there. It has since been established it was natural selection. Google it. There is not one transitional fossil. Hoping one is does not make it one. Have a look at the real fossil record (science) vs the darwinist one (fantasy). We share so much of or DNA with a banana. Your point is? Never heard of Intelligent Design? So yes there is debate going on.

  • The moth pictures were illustrative (which was explained at the time), the study was independently corroborated by Grant in '96 & Cook in '03.

    I cited one transitional, a few others: Yixianosaurus; Pedopenna; Archaeopteryx.

    If Ch2 hadn't corresponded with Chs12 & 13 it would have disproved evolution, but the correspondence substantiates it.

    My point is that there is no contradictory evidence for the Theory of Evolution (hence no scientific debate), & no substantiation for your Arab sky god.

  • You could look at a vid called "evolution crushed by the fossil record". It is easy to find lots of vids showing 50 million year old fossils that prove the animals alive today were the same as they were then. The coelacanth was a fish - thought to be extinct - touted as the one that first went on to land. They even made nice drawings of the supposed transition and put it in text books as proof. That is until they caught one in 1938. It was still a fish.

  • When you cite coelacanth you demonstrate either a crushing ignorance of biology or deliberate deceit. Certainly it is 'still a fish' in much the same way that Italian wall Lizards in Pod Mrcaru are still reptiles, but both species differ significantly from their ancestors.

    I notice that when your claims are exposed for the ignorance or deceits they are you simply ignore your error/lie & continue with more of the same.

    You even claim that astrophysics refutes evolution. Explain how.

  • The coelacanth differs how? Nice bit of a bluff isnt it? Prove it is different then. As to your lizards some assume it has evolved (hopeful) others say it is variation with the spieces the same as the pepper moth which incidently did not evolve. Or do you deny there can be variation within a spieces and that all changes must be evolution? Can you please explain how the first life originated from non living material? By the way leave out the insults.

  • As I stated, you're either ignorant or deceitful about the Theory of Evolution since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life (that's abiogenesis - NOT evolution).

    I'll be happy to name various differences between extant colaocanth & their ancestors once you substantiate your claim re. astrophysics refuting evolution. You have been asked previously to do so by Razielkain as well as myself, but have yet to support your assertion, so please do so.

  • Archaeopteryx is a bird and always was. You call me ignorant.